moonslav59

Would you do... Vaz to PHI, Ward, Wong & Abel (from PHI) to PIT and Taillon & Stalling to BOS?

I can't imagine us getting much for Beni, but Rosario seems better.

I keep trying to, but it doesn't work.

Maybe my theory on waiting for bargains may never be possible.

I think going back beyond the wild care era shouldn't be counted, so I'm glad you provided this info. If the odds were totally random, you'd expect the best record team to win 12.5% of the time or about 3 times in 26 seasons. They won 7 (27%). You'd expect the top teams from both leagues to win 25% of the time- not 46% (12 out of 26 years). This isn't even close. It's not random. If some math whiz wants to figure out the odds of a 67% winning team winning it all vs a 56% team winning it all, my guess is these last 26 seasons will show that winning teams out perform even that statistical numbers projected.

Vegas does offer odds on winning a series or even winning the WS at the start of the playoffs. We are not talking about any given game, where yes, the SP'er is a major influence on the odds given. I'm not sure what the odds are usually like, since I stopped betting long ago, and never bet on baseball, but my point is this: if it was a total crap shoot (all 8 teams have a 12.5% chance of winning), you could not place a $100 bet on all of the bottom 4 of the final 8 teams and expect to win due to the vig. However, if the payout for taking the 4 underdogs exceeds the vig, you could expect to win over the long run. I just can't see that as being even remotely possible, and if it was, people would be taking Vegas to the cleaners over the long run. Now, we all know Vegas odds are not just based on who they think will win, they are based on who Vegas thinks people will bet on or against, so it's not just about actual chances of winning based on team strength data, but you can see where I'm coming from, right?

I guess it depends on what people think a "crap shoot" means. Would you call a 45% chance at winning any given series a "crap shoot?" (I might.) How about 40%? (I would not.) 33%? (No way.) 25%? If 10 teams make the playoffs, of course the play-in teams have a less chance than the others, because one is knocked out right away, so let's just count the remaining 8 teams. In theory, a totally random chance application (a true crap shoot), would mean every team has a 12.5% chance at winning. Does anyone really believe all 8 remaining teams hover around the 12.5% mark? Does anyone think all teams fall withing a range of 10-15%, which one could argue is close enough to a true crap shoot to call it one? What if the range was 8-20%? Still a crap shoot? Let's look at only the final 8 teams of 2018, and let's assume these were the proven chances (for argument's sake) of each team's chances at winning the World Series. Would you call this a crap shoot? 20% BOS 18% LAD 14% HOU 13% NYY & MIL 10% ATL 6% CLE & COL I'd say clearly, "no," but maybe you disagree with the chances I assigned. That's fine. Would this be a crap shoot? 16% BOS 15% LAD 14% HOU 13% NYY & MIL 11% ATL 9% CLE & COL I'd argue that even if this is more realsitic than my first example,it's still not a crap shoot, when one team has nearly twice the chance of winning it all than 2 other teams (Sox 16% and CLE & CIN 9%). Would anybody really have thought it would be a good bet to take CLE & CIN's combined chances as being equal to Boston's chances? I guess if you really believe in crapshoots, you'd think that bet was a great one. Do you think the chances were really more like this? 14% BOS 13% LAD, HOU, MIL &NYY 12% ATL 11% CLE & CIN I can't see this as being even close. I'm no math expert, and I know that just because the Sox won 67% of all their games in 2018, it does not mean they will or can be expected to win 67% of their games in the playoffs, especially since their are no bad or really bad opponents in the playoffs, but to me, they have a clear advantage over teams like CLE, COL & ATL (56% in 2018). Yes, it looks like 67% vs 56% is slight, but when you multiply that times 5 or 7 games, the odds become much more than a 50-50 chance, and IMO more than a 55-45 chance. I'd still like to see the studies that show it's a crap shoot. I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence shows I am wrong.

People would be making a killing in Vegas, by betting the underdog every series and collecting the huge payouts due to the lines. Even if the results were 60-40 against the weaker teams, and IMO I wouldn't call that a crap shoot, but for argument's sake let's say it is, the odds often pay out way better than 6:4, if you take the underdog.

The whole system has changed in the last few years. Baseball is very different from what it was 9, 18, 27 or 54 years ago. On the 5 year sample size, I was responding to a post that said they felt the last 5 years showed the craps hoot theory was sound. I feel the best team winning 3 of 5 times, when the crap shoot theory would predict about 0.5, showed the opposite. Do you have a link that shows the best teams are close to having an equal record as the weakest teams? (long sample size)

Indeed. Same with the Pedro trade. Do you think Taillon could be an ace? He might be the best we can expect without giving away the whole farm. (On the BTV site, I've done numerous suggested trades with us getting him. The one I like the best is Philly getting Vaz, Pitt getting Abel from Philly and Ward from us, and we get Taillon.)

Me, too. Unlike many Sox fans, I really enjoy off season Sox news. I don't enjoy no news.

I was okay with the Price signing, because we needed an ace, and Price, at that time, was about one of the best that had been available in years (along with Scherzer before). The way the Price signing worked out, signing Bauer looks like an even bigger mistake, although I try to avoid taking positions based on one bad deal. (Not really "one" either.)

Sad day for MLB.

I kinda hope so. 1. He is not as good as other top FA starters signed in recent years. 2. Now is not the time to go big on the best player on the market. 3. He would likely take up too much of our winter spending allotment. We have too many weak spots and pretty bad full roster depth.

MLBTR- While the Red Sox were among the teams that liked Sugano, they are “uninterested” in offering any pitcher a four-year deal this winter, writes Alex Speier of the Boston Globe. They are, however, willing to offer two-year or three-year terms to certain hurlers. As Speier writes, that dovetails nicely with the team’s ongoing Jake Odorizzi pursuit. Arguably the second-best free agent starter remaining on the market, Odorizzi is expected to land a three-year deal in the $36MM — $42MM range.

Solid.

Well said. My guess is we will get to the point where we feel like we are one or two big additions away from being a top 3-4 team, and Bloom will be given the green light. I doubt that time comes this summer, and maybe not even next winter, but I'm hoping it's not too far away. I am also hoping we don't strike out on our next large and long deal(s).

I think we will sign some players for the "long term." They may not be flashy, but they could be good to very good, and there could be 3 to five of them...maybe even 6.

Agreed, but my guess is, and I am just guessing, that Henry has realized this is not "the year" to go the extra step to build a true WS contender, so the winter spending budget is not nearly as "flexible" as it was with DD before the winter of 2019. This by no means we are less "Flexible" than most teams. With today's circumstances as they are, most teams are looking to cut spending or stay even. Then, out of those willing to add from 2020, they won't be adding as much as we do. I'm certain we will out spend the vast majority of teams, this winter. Call it whatever you want, but "flexible" seems to fit well.

If he signs more martin Perezes and Perazas, I'll agree, but I think his spending budget is higher, this winter. He may still sign some head-scratchers, but even then, I'm cutting him some slack. Perez and Plawecki actually over performed on my expectations. (Peraza did not.)

Astros-to-sign-Ryne-Stanek

The AL has been weakened by trades, so far- at least in terms of 2021 team skill levels, so if the Sox sign a few good players, we may leap frog quite a few teams in the on-paper rankings.

Good point, but the assumption is no big deals are on the agenda, and we likely will not go way over the luxury tax line. This still gives us way more payroll flexibility than the vast majority of ML teams, IMO. I do think, when all is said and done, we will be one of this winter's top spending 5 teams. I am certain we will be from today and onward. It just won't me big flashy signings, unless you think Odorizzi, Kluber or Hand are flashy.

I consider all the players you mentioned part of the wait and sign bargain signings of decent to good players. Add low cost E Hernandez and a CF'er and we'll have spent more than 80% of the teams from today onward.

Way less teams, and some of the the teams that will end up spending more than the Sox have already spent much of their budget and may have less left over than the Sox do at this moment. I would be surprised if 5 teams spend more than the Sox fro this day forward, and that includes whoever signs Bauer, Springer and a couple others.